Re: python debug packages
On 14.05.2016 23:26, Iustin Pop wrote: On 2016-04-22 19:36:12, Matthias Klose wrote: On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: Hi Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages, how do you handle the debug /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files? They used to go in a generic -dbg package. […] - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in rrtool-dbg, like it is now. that would be my preferred solution. Reading https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages, there is some hints to this, but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not only debug symbols"? sounds fine.
Re: python debug packages
On 2016-04-22 19:36:12, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: > > Hi > > > > Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages, > > how do you handle the debug > > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files? > > > > They used to go in a generic -dbg package. […] > > - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in > > rrtool-dbg, like it is now. > > that would be my preferred solution. Reading https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages, there is some hints to this, but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not only debug symbols"? thanks, iustin
Re: python debug packages
On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: Hi Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages, how do you handle the debug /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files? They used to go in a generic -dbg package. I'm thinking about rrdtool, and it already has a lot of packages: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rrdtool I'm considering creating a specific python-rrdtool-dbg package. Other options I can think of are: - Put the debug .so file into the main python-rrdtool package no, that would add dependencies on the python-dbg packages by default. - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in rrtool-dbg, like it is now. that would be my preferred solution. - Stop bothering about this debug .so file, and trash it. please don't.
python debug packages
Hi Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages, how do you handle the debug /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files? They used to go in a generic -dbg package. I'm thinking about rrdtool, and it already has a lot of packages: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rrdtool I'm considering creating a specific python-rrdtool-dbg package. Other options I can think of are: - Put the debug .so file into the main python-rrdtool package - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in rrtool-dbg, like it is now. - Stop bothering about this debug .so file, and trash it. Any suggestion anyone?
Re: Package relationships for python debug packages
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:23:35 +1100, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Howdy all, What relationship should be declared between a binary ‘python-foo-dbg’ package and the ‘python-dbg’ package? I can't remember the rationale, but the consensus was not what I expected. Should the binary package ‘Depends: python-dbg’, or should it instead ‘Recommends: python-dbg’? What's the rationale? In http://wiki.debian.org/Python/DbgBuilds, we argued for ‘Recommends: python-dbg’ if the package can be used without the debug interpreter (eg: it contains the stripped debugging symbols for use with gdb); otherwise, ‘Depends: python-dbg’. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/a307b6fa2010da4b1ee8befdef834...@kvr.at
Re: Package relationships for python debug packages
Christian Kastner deb...@kvr.at writes: In http://wiki.debian.org/Python/DbgBuilds, we argued for ‘Recommends: python-dbg’ if the package can be used without the debug interpreter (eg: it contains the stripped debugging symbols for use with gdb); otherwise, ‘Depends: python-dbg’. That covers it. Thank you. -- \ “What I have to do is see, at any rate, that I do not lend | `\ myself to the wrong which I condemn.” —Henry Thoreau, _Civil | _o__)Disobedience_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878w1tst5y@benfinney.id.au
Package relationships for python debug packages
Howdy all, What relationship should be declared between a binary ‘python-foo-dbg’ package and the ‘python-dbg’ package? My search-fu must be weak today. I remember a discussion somewhere regarding Python extensions in C and the resulting ‘python-foo-dbg’ package. I can't remember the rationale, but the consensus was not what I expected. Should the binary package ‘Depends: python-dbg’, or should it instead ‘Recommends: python-dbg’? What's the rationale? -- \ “I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at | `\ the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour …” —F. H. Wales, 1936 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aamaudi0@benfinney.id.au
